October 9, 2009

Rush Limbaugh — just now — on the real reason why Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. It's a "hand grenade that has been lobbed" into American foreign policy. "He's basically emasculating America, and they're rewarding him."

84 comments:

He got the prize. The prize is for what he has supposedly done, not for what he will do. He can unleash a war to end all wars and it won't make any difference. Of course he will not do that. It would offend the Europeans and the Muslim world. Can't have that now can we?

I was just thinking the same thing. It seems very likely that a significant part of the motivation was to affect Obama's future decisions and especially his decision on Afghanistan.

The worst part is that there is a fair chance it will work and Obama's decision will be influenced. I am afraid we have made a major mistake in electing Obama president. He starts with no relevant experience or strong principles and now he is facing important decisions that he needs to make on the fly.

I'm with Rush on this one. The prize is an attempt to put pressure on Obama not to do certain things, like help Israel defend itself, keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, put more troops in Afghanistan, etc.

And if, as Obama says, this is a prize for the nation and not for him, will he turn the tax free $1.4 million over to the government?

I do hear he's in the running for the Claret Jug, the Lombardi Trophy and the Stanley Cup.

Sending troops is not incompatible with the Peace Prize. Other sitting Presidents who received the Peace Prize include the Hero of San Juan Hill (TR) and the man who kept us out of war but then got us into it, anyway (Wilson).

Article I, Section 9: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The Roosevelt and Wilson cases were not ones where they resorted to military force AFTER winning the Nobel prize. Actually, since Obama authorized one troop increase in Afghanistan, he is another example of the prize being won after using military force.

The focus here is the Norwegians seeking to influence what he does in the future. They, like everyone else, know he is inexperienced and subject to influence.

It is an entirely rational decision by the leftist Norwegians. They have a chance to influence the most powerful person in the world, and they promote their approach to world problems. Heck, there even is a tiny chance they may be right, not naive, and this will lead to world peace. I assume they think it will.

I did not see Obama's remarks, but he apparently said he would accept it as a "call to action" which is framing it pretty well. The big picture is still drivel, but at least it puts the award in a rational light.

Only paranoid people are going to think this will somehow impact US Foreign policy. If the Nobel committee thought it could they would have given one to W. Also, it's funny and weird Obama won the thing but going on about how undeserving he is gets old pretty fast and starts making the haters sound like petty whiners and losers. All Obama has to do here is be gracious and humble and he will be fine.

Joe, that's a pretty clear statement in the Constitution. Of course, Congress could go ahead and pass the resolution allowing him to accept it, but I doubt they'll bother; less and less do our Political Overlords treat the Constitution even as a fig leaf.

Obama has already announced that he is ending the Iraq War, with troops scheduled to leave next year. That makes him a bigger peacemaker than anyone else in the past year. If John McCain had won, we would have had war in Iraq forever (or at least the remainder of his term).

So you can LIE all you want about how he's done "nothing", but what that really means is that you are all FUCKING PISSED OFF that he is ending useless neocon wars and he's getting credit for it.

I'm hoping this ridiculous prize actually causes more Americans to wake up and realize what a doofus we have for a prez.

How does that follow?

It makes me think the people who award the prize are doofuses (doofi?). If Paris Hilton had won an Oscar for her work in House of Wax, would it make you think differently of her, or for the people who voted for her?

I rather doubt Obama is going to be poised to do something militaristic and then think Oops, nope, can't do that, I'm a Nobel Laureate!.

"I'm hoping this ridiculous prize actually causes more Americans to wake up and realize what a doofus we have for a prez."

Unfortunately it will not. The American people aka the voters are about as apathetic a bunch of slugs on the face of the earth. Proof- they keep electing the same people to congress and the senate over and over again. They identify with political parties- to lazy to form their own thoughts. They bitch and moan about taxes, jobs, and the economy- yet they do nothing about it; just keep electing the same poltroons and idiots over and over again. Repubs or Dems makes no difference.

Hey they even elected a total brainless moron as vice president. Joe Biden- an embarrassment to any person with a modicum of intelligence. For you uber liberals Biden makes Bush look like a member of Mensa.

Not an issue when Roosevelt picked up his prize money, when he gave it all away.

Roosevelt's contempt for the constitution was even more glaring than that of our current Congress (Obama seems so indifferent to everything, who knows what his views actually are.)

I really do believe that returning to the principles of the constitution will return the country to greatness and go a long way toward solving several of its most glaring problems. I deeply resent the evisceration of the constitution in whatever name that has been going on for almost a century.

In the end, Congress merely has to pass a simple resolution to resolve this. And while I roll my eyes at Obama's award, I see no reason why such a resolution not receive an overwhelming majority approval (unless its full of sycophancy, in which case, I would ask all to reject it.) Of course, seeing congress actual pass something as simple as "President Barrack Obama has our permission to receive the Nobel Peace Prize." is too much to ask.

The troops to Afghanistan decision is fraught with way more real life problems than some optics issue related to the Nobel Prize. My suspicion is that such real life concerns are a beach to the NPs grain of sand here.

"Obama has already announced that he is ending the Iraq War, with troops scheduled to leave next year....This prize is for what he has DONE."

He has also announced that he won't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250K and we see how little he meant with that. There is a long list of "announcements" that Obama has made. I have no reason to think he means what he says about the Iraq war, either.

Thinking about it, I think he now almost has to authorize more troops, although probably in a fashion that makes it look less agressive. If he ever said no to generals after this, he would be tagged with siding with Nobel Prize leftists over his generals - an untenable position.

Peter Bella said: "Unfortunately it will not. The American people aka the voters are about as apathetic a bunch of slugs on the face of the earth. Proof- they keep electing the same people to congress and the senate over and over again. They identify with political parties- to lazy to form their own thoughts. They bitch and moan about taxes, jobs, and the economy- yet they do nothing about it; just keep electing the same poltroons and idiots over and over again. Repubs or Dems makes no difference."

Hey Peter, are you sure the voters are to blame? Are you sure it isn't ACORN? It seems the Dems are doubling-down on every poorly received initiative they've taken. It's almost like they don't think they'll be held accountable...which they won't be if the FIX is IN.

vw = auttoi: a group of space aliens with developmental problems due to a home planet environment rich in the element Mercury.

If Obama (1)sends 40,000 troops into the Afghan Mountain Valleys then the Taliban and its allies in Iran will send in 10,000 suicide Jihadists for slaughtering infidels practice, but maybe the grandchildren of today's Afghan deployed men and women may one day finish this war. If(2) Obama withdraws then we will never be feard again by the Arabs. Or if (3) Obama keeps the present troop levels then the first result happens, but with no hope for any victory. Life is a bitch when you have already been awarded the Prince Of Peace Prize for shilly shallying away from anything but double talk, and then suddenly American lives are at stake if and when a decision ever has to be made. I predict he will opt for #3.

Downtownlad: bullying your way through an opposing view is not going to get your point across. Further, he was only in office 11 days when nominations closed. This was for work DONE, not for work since. Whether you agree or disagree on what Obama has (or has not) done, that is a fact. He had not done anything yet (or arguably now, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on that).

Pogo: the Nobel Peace Prize's credibility is tarnished with this. If they were really going to go through with it (w/no agenda), then it should be next year or beyond. And I don't think it should go to Obama period, but at least don't be so obvious about it.

Finally, Obama says he will donate the money to charity. How about our national debt he has increased so substantially that our children's children will be paying it off?

I now listened to Obama's statement. I found it odd. It was well constructed as to content, but he seemed detached from what he was saying. Part of it might have been no teleprompter, which required him to look down at notes. Part of it may be that even he thought the award was unjustified. Part of it might have been that his joke at the outset about his kids bing a bomb. But overall, it was pretty good on content (in the sense of being modest and touching the right bases, even if largely empty rhetoric), but not well or sincerely delivered.

It will be fascinating to watch how the award impacts his decision on Afghanistan, which presumably will be made prior to his acceptance of the award.

1.Afghanistan standing alone means almost nothing to the U.S. in any stategic sense, other than keeping it from being a staging ground for terrorist attacks against us. [This puts the moral and nation building issues to one side - yes, it would be nice to help those poor people, but we really can't afford to be that generous.]

2. Pakistan means a great deal to us strategically, due to its nuclear bombs. So, our decisions should be driven by how to achieve the desired result in Pakistan.

3. Obama and the Democrats were putting on a con job about the war in Afghanistan as being the real place for the war on terror and a war of necessity.

4. Democrats obviously would prefer to get out of Afghanistan if they could and they will not be tolerant of Obama for very long if he decides he has to stay in.

5. The reality is now hitting Obama and he does not know what to do.

6. Now Obama is in a catch 22. If he folds, he will look weak and expose his con job. If he approves what the generals want, it will be inconsisen with his peace prize and the democrats will be unhappy with him.

Further, he was only in office 11 days when nominations closed. This was for work DONE, not for work since.

Unless you're on the committee, I don't see how you can be an authority on how they work. The close of nominations means no more entrants, not the end of deliberations. For all we know, they were comparing performance through Tuesday.

If Obama dropped a nuke on Pyongyang last week, I suspect the committee would have picked some one else.

"1.Afghanistan standing alone means almost nothing to the U.S. in any stategic sense, other than keeping it from being a staging ground for terrorist attacks against us."

Check a map, KC. It's a crucial location and if it destabilizes there is no end of trouble for India, Pakistan and some of the other stans to the north and east. The Russians did not go to war their just because they thought it would be a good training exercise. They know influential geography when they see it.

We are really being stupid in Afghanistan. We are losing American lives and spending hundreds of billions of our treasure, and in the regions that we have 'stabilized,' the Chinese are opening iron and copper mines.

If Obama does send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan it will benefit not us, but the Chinese (sort of like how the real winner in the Iraq war was Iran.)

When you agree with Rush's scathing derision of Obama, specifically his reference to Obama's alleged emasculation of America, that leads me to wonder if you have something against vaginas.

And as anyone who follows this blog knows, the commenters believe there is great wonder and power in vaginas - especially if the vagina belongs to Sarah Palin or any other politician that Andrew Sullivan criticizes for being a liar.

I'll accept that Obama coasts off of being the most popular boy in the classroom if you'll accept that Sarah Palin's a pin-up doll for the right wing.

David...Once Obama eliminates nuclear weapons by having a UN Global Army take them all away. then what do we care who destabilizes Pakistan, Russia, China? That Peace Prize is an atta boy given to our new Global Organizer. He just needs to let Biden be a President for us while he Presides over Global Governance. Then watch out Rio...The Olympic Games may belong to ChiTown permanently. What me worry?

This more or less validates all of the stereotypes the right has of the left. Obama is rewarded for his blatant anti-Americanism by a bunch of European leftists who want to see America weak and on the retreat. They are so desperate to prop Obama up that they will make fools of themselves to do so.